How Should Members of Congress Vote?

This is a tough question, and if you ask me I'd say it varies depending upon the situation. The members of Congress were elected by the majority of the people in their district. Therefore, majority of the people would agree with their elected official's opinions right? Wrong. Not a lot of people take into consideration the fact that approximately fifty percent of those eligible to vote actually vote, meaning a lot of people may actually disagree with the views of their representative. Then the argument may continue with "Well if they didn't even turn out to vote, then why should they be able to have a say in the matter?" This argument could go in circles. But when it comes down to it, a member of Congress's vote is ultimately up to them. In my opinion they should set aside their party affiliations and actually research a bill in depth before they take a side on it. If I were in Congress, I believe I would do just that. Congressmen are the ones who are most educated about a bill, and they hopefully have the best interest of their people in mind. They were elected to represent them after all.

Term Limits Shmerm Limits

I agree with the current policy on term limits. I don't believe that it's necessary for members of Congress to be limited to a certain number of terms. If the people think the incumbent is doing the best possible job, then why should they not be able to be elected again and again? I understand that this policy may not give many people a chance at office and changes might not be made, but why risk switching things up if everything is going well? If the majority of the population is unsatisfied with a member of Congress, then they can always choose to not re-elect them.

Ohh Politicians

I don't know about you, but it seems to me as if the majority of the Meg Whitman vs Jerry Brown debates are spent on tearing each other down instead of promoting their individual campaigns. Both candidates do this. They seem to take the question they are given, address it, and then turn it around so that they can somehow use it to their opponents disadvantage. It seems like they're each more educated on the other person's flaws than on their own policies that they're trying to promote. I mean I know that this always happens when two people are competing for office, but it just makes me feel like neither candidate is qualified when I know a lot of bad things about each of them but not very many good things about either.